For most people Italy and tax evasion go together. Even the Italians think so. In which case it's good to see the Washington Post report that:
Premier Romano Prodi has called on Roman Catholic priests to help him battle Italy's widespread tax evasion by invoking the seventh commandment: "thou shalt not steal".
Prodi made the appeal in an interview this week with Italian religious affairs weekly Famiglia Cristiana. He is reported to have said:
A third of Italians heavily evade taxes. To change this mind-set, everybody, starting with the teachers, must do their part, school and church included.
Why, when I go to Mass, is this issue, which is ethically charged, almost never touched upon in the homilies?
Quite right, in all respects. But then Prodi is a practising Catholic who said in justification:
if memory serves, St. Paul exhorted (citizens) to obey the authority.
He did, for the record it's in Romans 13: 6 & 7 which actually went further. He said:
This is why you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, devoting themselves to this very thing. Pay to all their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, toll to whom toll is due, respect to whom respect is due, honour to whom honour is due.
For those who are interested, I referred to this in an article I wrote on the theology of taxation a few years back (and which I'd revise now).
Reaction from the church was mixed according to the Washington Post:
Archbishop Bruno Forte, a theologian and longtime friend of Pope Benedict XVI, said that "if the church is cautious, it is because it tries to understand the reasons people have. Not justifying, understanding."
But the Rev. Gianni Baget Bozzo, a friend and political aide to conservative leader Silvio Berlusconi, said evading taxes is not a sin and can even be seen as "self-defense."
The latter is a libertarian view. It's extraordinarily difficult to reconcile this attitude of self defence with the second commandment of Christ which is "love your neighbour as yourself". But then I have real problems with much of the libertarian Right and their use of the Christian faith to defend their position.
For the record, I'm an Anglican and have been a Quaker and remain strongly in sympathy with the Quaker tradition.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I am an athiest, but am interested in all religions, I make a definition here, in that I have no problem with anyone having a faith in the higher being of their choice, but find the religion that overseas their respective faith problematic historically. Therefore, I think that there would have to be a major change in mindset by the Catholic church to condemn tax evasion or any other immoral or illicit financial services activity.
Chris … The Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “It is unjust not to pay the social security contributions required by legitimate authority.” And the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales said, in “Taxation for the Common Good” (2004):
“When it comes to the state fulfilling its obligations through providing goods and services, it can do so through taxation … In a democracy, citizens have a role to play in deciding how taxes will be raised and what they will provide and Catholic tradition sees responsible citizenship as a virtue. In part, this is how we acknowledge our obligations towards one another and our society, expressed through our willingness to pay just and fair taxes.”
For the record, I am a Catholic and a tax journalist.
Regards, Andrew
Quite astonishing.
“Love your neighbour as your self” is *not* the same as “Take money from somebody else against their will in order that you can give it to your neighbour”.
Indeed, the entire *idea* that there is virtue in persuading those in power to help those you prefer – by taking from others – seems to be the *opposite* of the idea of self-sacrifice.
Richard
Maybe you don’t recall that this teaching arose in answer to the question ‘But who is my neighbour?’
It seems to me that you have inappropriately understood that teaching.
It would appear that St Paul did understand it to me.
Richard
“It seems to me that you have inappropriately understood that teaching.”
My neighbour is the man next door, the tramp in the park, the poor of Africa and the banker in Canary Wharf. I am implored to treat them as I would like to be treated and to love them as I love myself.
I do not recall being asked to confiscate riches from third parties in order to help these people. Instead, I recall being asked to do my utmost to help them myself.
Perhaps I was away from Sunday School on the relevant week, but I do not recall reading the parable of the man who stole the rich man’s gold to give to his favoured special causes.
Even more strangely, the lesson I took from the “rich man and the camel” was not that we should help him out by confiscating his riches. Perhaps I was just being naive when I thought the lesson was that he should see the need to help the less unfortunate himself.
Richard
Perhaps your problem is that you’re still stuck in Sunday School, along with Richard Dawkins.
These issues are a bit more complex than that.
Richard
Richard
Perhaps you were also on holiday the week they covered Render unto Caesar
I know all the theological problems in that one – but along with Romans 13 the message seems pretty unambiguous to me
Richard
“Render unto Caesar”? I too remember that bit. But what happens if Caesar is asking too much, or asking money for unworthy causes?
While John Prescott has access to 2 Jaguars, while the super-rich pay much less tax than their share because of the non-domicile loophole, while taxpayers’ money is spent on a possibly illegal war, then I think tax evasion will always be a very real problem.
Some Quakers refuse to pay a portion of their tax on the basis that they won’t pay for weapons of war. While I don’t do that (disclosure; I’m a Quaker), I can sympathise with that.
Why should I pay for John Prescott to have 2 Jaguars? Let him drive a Vauxhall Corsa like I do 🙂
M
M
One reason why I’m not a Quaker now (and I was) is that I could not agree with their position on withholding tax. It was an incredibly narrow minded and ultimately futile argument which allowed for all sorts of other dangers (e.g. people could say “I don’t believe in education” , or “I don’t have children so I don’t want to pay for that”, and so on. The result would be chaos).
Which is, I am sure, why Paul and Jesus said pay your tax. But it sure as heck didn’t stop them arguing about the legitimacy of Roman government. That’s quite OK. These days we have a democratic process to do that within. Which is why we also have to abide by the collective decision it makes.
When we don’t like it the process is called, I think, turning the other cheek.
Richard
When you think about it religion (that’s not faith in a higher being), In conjuction with percieved democracy, e.g Bush–Blair (both declared Christians) is nothing more than electoral tokenism to decieve the public that they actually care about anything.
Don’t get me wrong, Faith in a higher being is a truly great thing, its just the religions that stink.
I am an atheist.
Chris
Precisely the point that sent me to the Quakers in the first place….
Richard
Hi Richard,
Can our government be called truly democratically elected when not every vote carries the same weight? I would argue that we need proportional representation to achieve that.
I made the choice not to vote at the last election, because I didn’t sympathise with any of the political parties. To my mind all they seem to do is chuck mud at each other and refuse to admit they got anything wrong.
As for the Quaker stance on peace tax – not all Quakers withhold part of their tax. I don’t, and part of what drew me to Quakerism is that you don’t necessarily have to follow all the ideals – for example, there were one or two Quakers who fought in World War 2. Totally contrary to the peace testimony at first sight, but they did it because they believed that to build a lasting peace they first had to help rid the world of an unspeakable evil.
But I agree that withholding part of your tax is something that could open a huge can of worms if people decide they don’t want to pay towards education, energy, transport, etc.
And it’s not always easy to know what the government’s collective decision is – re the other issue that’s being debated on your site, small companies and LLPs. They opened the way for small businesses to incorporate (0% tax band) and are now squeezing them back again! What do they want small businesses to do?!
M
Without proportional representation all governments must be deemed illigitimate, as the policies that they pass are not representive of the majority of the population. Therefore, the State and not the people create the dominant discursive that we are all supposed to have accepted.
Without proportional representation all governments must be deemed illigitimate, as the policies that they pass are not representive of the majority of the population. Therefore, the State and not the people create the dominant discursive that we are all supposed to have accepted. Religion plays its part in in the dominate discursive of the State
M
I agree with much of what you say.
As Alex Cobham said here yesterday, we need clear thinking, a poilcy and stability for small business on the basis of something sustainable.
But that’s why the economics have to be right. Injustice is unsustainable, and there is resentment of self employed people fleecing the system out there – even if small accountants like to ignore such realities.
Richard